Would you pay more to see adult versions of films?

Lets say there is a movie with a large budget, 100 million.
They don't want to make it R or NC-17 because they won't make their money back. They need it to be PG-13 for this concept to reach a wide enough audience.

What if they spent an extra 5 days shooting, an extra month of post production and created two versions of the movie. Released an R version and PG-13 version that both hit the theaters and you had a choice.

The PG-13 was normal price and the R was 50% more expensive.
Would you pay extra to see the R version?

I would - I'd always prefer an uncensored version to something watered down.

good question foster

I will pay the extra money, I can never watch a PG13 movie when I know there is an R rated one out there

If it's a movie that I want to watch but I don't want to watch so bad, I'd probably pirate it when it's out because I'm against that concept.

It may be a good a thing if the movie is intended to be PG13 then the R rated version is made for people like me, but it's a terrible idea if it's the other way around

So, it may be a good thing, I'm not sure I'd feel about it if it really happened, but currently I'm against it

__________________
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're rational, should change your beliefs" Ricky Gervais

I wouldn't.


If they started releasing two versions of a movie, I'd hope they'd charge the same for each.


Saying that though, I'd definitely see the uncut version compared to a kid friendly version.

__________________

I'd go with the one the director preferred.

What I think they should do is make an adult version of the DVD cut, like The Dark Knight 18+, you actually see the Joker feeding people to the dogs, cutting their throats etc, a little bit of blood perhaps.

__________________

I'm with Swan on this one, which is why I love director's cut releases. I subscribe to the auteur theory and, under the assumption it's not a boring director-for-hire type filmmaker, I'd watch whichever version the director prefers.

That said, if they ever do this, no one would ever charge more for one version or the other. They don't even do that for different films, I don't know why anyone would charge more because it's a different rating.

I know for sure, though, that the PG13 rated version would make more money but the R-rated version would be seen more.

__________________

For an experiment it would be interesting to see a film come out in two versions in every cinema it's showing and compare the ticket sales. Unless they have done this already somewhere?

If I miss a film at the cinema I always watch the unrated/director's cut if there is one on the blu-ray release(Expendables 3 is the most recent one I've watched like that where it's about 6 minutes longer with more of the violence put back in).

Is it worth it?
All depends on who was showing their boobies. Kate Upton, yes. Sandra Bernhard, not really. Then you would have to divide the extra 50% price bump per boobie. That would be a 25% ticket price increase per boobie, divided of course, by the number of times each boobie was shown for the duration of the film. Or is it multiplied? Oh crap, too much figuring out for me. Oh, and I'm getting my candy at the drugstore thank you very much.

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

Depends on the star cast! If Judie Dench is in it... wont think of it.

If Jolie, J Lo, Johansson yes.

__________________
My Favorite Films

I don't think that would make sense economically.
Seeing one or the other at the same price, you were probably going to see the film either way!

So why would they spend all that extra money to make two versions?

The only way you could convince a studio to do something like this is if they could charge extra for the tickets and offset the cost.

No.

Going to the movie theater costs way too much already, I'm not paying extra to not get the watered down version. If this idea became reality, I'd simply stop going to the theater altogether.

__________________

What's the point of paying extra period just to see a pair of ****? - there are millions of **** available on the internet for anyone who's that eager just to oogle.

**** really aren't any different from woman to woman anyway. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Scarlet's **** and the **** of any young woman I've been with - in any real life situation to be honest. I try to avoid this idealization of 'fantasy' women.

Well if you are paying extra.. might as well enjoy the perks. Come on... even though they are the same melons, there is a high difference in quality!

Not to mention nipple variation!

Point is if someone posted 2 pictures of boobs side-by-side, I doubt anyone would be able to tell who's are Scarlett's and whose are an average woman's (without any photo enhancement). lol

Most of these celeb women without makeup or enhancement look good, but not strikingly different from an attractive woman you might meet at a bar or a grocery store - that's why I don't buy into idolizing them.

So I wouldn't pay more just to see boobage nah, censorship in general though detracts from the realism and makes films more boring.

Oh sure, but no matter how sound your argument may be you will never decrease the general publics enthusiasm for a nice pair

Anyway it's more about the complete package. You could have the nicest pair in the world and if they're on a troll I'm not going to enjoy it.

Only 90sAce could turn a boob joke into a debate...

^^^ This. What exactly is the R rated movie going to contain that the PG-13 movie does not? Nudity and Gore? I have access to the internet, if I cared to look at either of those things I could all day long for free. If the R rated movie contains something integral to the story so that the PG-13 movie becomes less than then I would hope the director would refuse to make that version.

There are several movies that I can think of off the top of my head that could never exist as a PG-13 movie without becoming a different movie entirely; Shortbus & Anti-Christ to name a couple. Those are really good movies that couldn't be what they are and be PG-13.

If we are talking about a lot of extra money just to see a couple of nude shots that we wouldn't see otherwise, then heck no.

The debate was whether or not you'd pay more to see an R-rated version.

Would I pay $7 more just to see 10 seconds of Scarlett Johansson's boobs when they're not objectively that much more remarkable than any pair you could see on the internet for free (or in real life for that matter)? Nah.